2005 interlocal agreement (ila-2) - port of seattle · 2018. 3. 13. · 4 02/07/06 this interlocal...

Port of SeattlePort of Seattle

2005 Interlocal Agreement (ILA-2)

February 16 , 2006

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cooperation and Implementation of Agreement…………………………………. 4

2. Land Use and Zoning…………………………………………………………….. 4

3. Surface Water Management……………………………………………………… 4

4. Critical Areas…………………………………………………………………….. 4

5. Transportation……………………………………………………………………. 4

6. State Environment Policy Act……………………………………………………. 4

7. Public Safety……………………………………………………………………… 4 7.1 Police Jurisdiction & Authority…………………………………………….. 4 7.2 Police Emergency Planning & Operations…………………………………. 5 7.3 Fire…………………………………………………………………………. 5

8. Material Haul…………………………………………………………………….. 5

9. Master Plan & Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) Interagency Cooperation & Development Commitments……………………………………. 5

10. Term of Agreement………………………………………………………………. 5

11. Extension of Terms of Agreement of 2001 and 2004 ILAs……………………… 6

12. Net Benefit……………………………………………………………………….. 6

13. Dispute Resolution……………………………………………………………….. 6 13.1 Party Consultation………………………………………………………….. 6 13.2 Selection of an Arbitrator…………………………………………………... 6 13.3 Arbitration Rules………………………………………………………….... 7 13.4 Arbitration Procedure and Decision………………………………………... 7 13.5 Other Disputes……………………………………………………………… 7

14. General Provisions……………………………………………………………….. 7 14.1 Binding Agreement; Authority…………………………………………….. 7 14.2 Amendment………………………………………………………………... 7 14.3 Governing Law……………………………………………………………. 7 14.4 Interpretation; Severability; Changes in Law……………………………… 7 14.5 Coordination; Notice……………………………………………………… 7

ii

14.6 Cooperation……………………………………………………………….. 8 14.7 Time of Essence…………………………………………………………… 8 14.8 Headings………………………………………………………………….. 8 14.9 Exhibits…………………………………………………………………… 8 15. Relationship of City Code to this Agreement………………………………….. 8 16. Good Faith……………………………………………………………………… 8 17. Shared Legislative Strategies…………………………………………………… 8

EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Land Use 1. Cooperative Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development

2. Zoning/Land Use/Development Regulations Exhibit B: Surface Water Management (SWM)

1. SWM Fees 2. Water Quality Review 3. Coordinated Comprehensive Drainage Plans and Basin Planning 4. SWM Design Standards 5. Coordinated Project Review & Approval

Exhibit C: Interagency Cooperation & Development Commitments

1. General 2. City Center 3. Sound Transit Light Rail Implementation 4. Economic Development 5. Transportation and Planning 6. Street Vacation 7. Airport Beautification Plan 8. Economic Partnership 9. City/Port Advisory Committee 10. Noise 11. Phase II Tri-Party Agreement 12. Escalation of Financial Commitments; No Revenue Diversion

Exhibit D: Material Hauling Provisions for Port Haul Projects greater than 100,000 cubic yards

1. Operating Conditions and Standards 2. Fees 3. Dispute Resolution

iii

4. Conflict in Provisions

4 02/07/06

THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement" or "ILA") is entered into effective the 16th day of February , 2006 between the PORT OF SEATTLE ("Port"), a Washington municipal corporation, and the CITY OF SEATAC ("City"), a Washington municipal corporation. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the parties desire to enter into a new agreement with one another in order to jointly establish a mutual and cooperative system for exercising their respective jurisdictional authority to avoid disputes or potential claims and to obtain fair and equitable resolution of any potential disputes or claims. B. WHEREAS, the Port owns and operates Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ("Sea-Tac Airport"), which is located primarily within the City limits. C. WHEREAS, as municipal corporations, the City and Port each have statutory authority to address common subjects such as planning, land use and zoning, transportation, surface water management, critical areas, police and other matters. Both parties are governed by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and have lead agency authority to the extent provided in the SEPA rules. D. WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into an InterLocal Agreement (“ILA”) dated September 4, 1997, along with Amendment #1 dated December 14, 1999, Amendment #2 dated December 15, 1999, Amendment #3 dated December 5, 2000 and Amendment #4 dated December 26, 2001.

E. WHEREAS, the ILA expires on September 4, 2007. F. WHEREAS, both parties desire to terminate the ILA dated September 4, 1997

and enter into a new ILA in order to continue to develop a cooperative relationship between the parties and to update the ILA to reflect current conditions.

G. WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into other agreements subsequent to the 1997 ILA, which include a settlement agreement dated May 24, 1999 (concerning routing of 911 emergency calls); agreement letter between the Airport Director and City Manager dated July 5, 2000 (concerning implementation of the Port’s $10 million landscape commitment); ILA dated January 1, 2001 (concerning surface water management and building code administration); development agreement dated December 14, 2001 (concerning development of borrow sites #3 and #4); development agreement dated April 23, 2002 (concerning development of 55 acres of Port property adjacent to North SeaTac Park); and an ILA dated September 29, 2004 (concerning building and fire code review for projects located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Port and the City).

5 02/07/06

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Port and City agree as follows: 1. Cooperation and Implementation of Agreement. The City and Port each shall take appropriate actions to implement this Agreement. The parties shall use all reasonable good faith efforts to implement this Agreement and avoid disputes. 2. Land Use and Zoning. The City and Port adopt the planning, land use and zoning provisions set forth in Exhibit A hereto and shall implement the same. Both parties acknowledge that the Airport’s 2005 Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) is under development, and that mitigation of environmental impacts of the CDP will be addressed in the programmatic and project-specific stages of the CDP environmental process. Both parties further acknowledge that it is important City concerns of CDP implementation be addressed in the earliest stages. The Port agrees to notify the City at least three months prior to the issuance of any environmental documents or determination about any planned construction of any CDP project, and agrees to collaboratively work with the City to identify and resolve City concerns. Where differences may remain regarding the approach to be used in the proposed CDP to minimize ramifications on the City, the Dispute Resolution process described in Section 13 shall apply. 3. Surface Water Management. The City and Port adopt the surface water management provisions set forth in Exhibit B hereto and shall implement the same. 4. Critical Areas. The City and Port adopt the critical area regulations for application to Port projects as set forth in the Development Standards included as Attachment A-5 to Exhibit A. 5. Transportation. The City and Port adopt the transportation provisions set forth as part of Exhibit C. 6. State Environmental Policy Act. The City and Port shall follow the lead agency rules as set forth in the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-922-948. The parties acknowledge the Port generally will be the lead agency for Port-initiated projects. Any disputes shall be resolved by the Department of Ecology as provided in WAC 197-11-946.

7. Public Safety.

7.1 Police Jurisdiction & Authority. The City and Port each have their respective authority and jurisdiction to establish police forces. The parties may further agree to joint or individual coverage of Port-owned or operated properties within the City consistent with their respective authority over those properties. E-911 calls will be routed in accordance with

6 02/07/06

the parties’ arbitrated settlement agreement dated May 24, 1999.

7.2 Police Emergency Planning & Operations. The parties may also participate in joint emergency planning and operations and related homeland security issues.

7.3 Fire: The City and Port have already entered into a number of Mutual and Automatic Aid Agreements which establish their mutual commitments and roles for assisting in fire calls and other emergencies. For purposes of this ILA, the parties desire to identify their existing agreements for convenience only. The parties may mutually agree to amend or enter into new agreements without amending this ILA. The existing agreements are:

• Automatic Mutual Response Agreement, December 31, 1992 • Agreement for Appointment of Agent and Authorization to Enter into

Mutual Aid Agreement for Implementation of Mutual Fire Resources Plan, December 1992

8. Material Haul. The City and Port adopt the material hauling provisions for Port Haul Projects greater than 100,000 cubic yards as set forth in Exhibit D. 9. Master Plan & Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) Interagency Cooperation & Development Commitments. The parties adopt the interagency cooperation and development commitments set forth in Exhibit C for the projects included in the Port's Airport Master Plan Update adopted August 1, 1996 ("Port Master Plan") and in the Port’s Draft Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) dated on or about September 30, 2005. Project review for the Port's Master Plan and Comprehensive Development Plan Projects (defined in Attachment A-1 to Exhibit A) is covered by Section 2.2 of Exhibit A ("Project Implementation and Development Regulations"). 10. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties for a term of ten (10) years. Either party may request review of the Agreement upon notifying the other party in writing. Upon receipt of such notice, the parties shall promptly and in good faith meet to discuss any revisions to this Agreement desired by either party. The procedures and standards set forth in this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, shall be applicable during the term of the Agreement. Neither the Port nor City shall modify or add new conditions to those set forth in this Agreement during the term of this Agreement unless either (a) the parties have mutually agreed to those changes, or (b) either party, after discussion with the other party and a public hearing, determines in good faith that changes are required to respond to a serious threat to public health or safety. 11. Extension of Terms of Agreement of 2001 and 2004 ILAs. Both parties agree that the terms of the ILAs dated January 1, 2001 (concerning surface water management and

7 02/07/06

building code administration) and September 29, 2004 (concerning building and fire code review for projects located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Port and the City) shall be extended to run concurrently with the term of this ILA, subject to the terms and conditions in Exhibit B, “surface water management” and Exhibit A “land use.” 12. Net Benefit. The Parties desire to work together to further enhance their partnership and to maximize the regional and local economic benefits of growth in air travel activity at the Airport. It is the intent of both parties that this agreement shall have a net neutral impact on City revenues for items that are addressed herein, including, but not limited to, City parking tax and surface water management (SWM) fees. For general economic development, the parties shall work cooperatively to strive for a net positive impact on City revenues. 13. Dispute Resolution. The following Dispute Resolution provisions shall apply to any disputes between the parties concerning Exhibit A (Land Use), Exhibit B (Surface Water Management), Exhibit C (Interagency Cooperation & Development Commitments), or Exhibit D (Material Hauling).

13.1 Party Consultation. Either party may invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures of this Agreement. The City Manager (or his/her designee) and the Aviation Division Managing Director (or his/her designee) along with any staff or consultants, shall meet within seven (7) days after request from either party. This seven (7) day time period may be extended for an additional seven (7) days at the request of either party. The parties shall present their proposed resolution of the dispute at a meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). The JAC shall consider the recommendation and may adopt the recommendation or propose an alternative means of resolving the dispute. Any solution adopted by the JAC may be adopted by the City Council and Port Commission. If the dispute is not resolved by the elected bodies, the parties may agree to additional meetings or may select an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. (Disputes that are subject to the primary jurisdiction of another tribunal such as the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board are not subject to these Dispute Resolution provisions.)

13.2 Selection of an Arbitrator. The parties may agree upon an arbitrator to

hear the dispute. If the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator within seven (7) days after the conclusion of Party Consultation as stated in Section 13.1, then either party may seek appointment of a single arbitrator pursuant to RCW 7.04.050. The arbitrator shall be experienced in the particular subject matter of the dispute and shall not be an employee or a consultant of either party. Potential providers of arbitration services include, but are not limited to the following: the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), and Washington Arbitration and Mediation Services (WAMS).

13.3 Arbitration Rules. The rules shall be the King County Local Rules for

Mandatory Arbitration, unless the parties agree to alternative rules.

8 02/07/06

13.4 Arbitration Procedure and Decision. The arbitrator shall establish the

procedures and allow presentations of written or oral materials. The arbitrator shall render his or her decision within thirty (30) days of the date when the parties select the arbitrator. The parties may agree to extend the time period for the arbitrator’s consideration and issuance of a decision concerning the dispute. The arbitrator's decision shall be in writing, shall provide findings and conclusions for resolution of the dispute and shall be binding. Judgment on the arbitrator's award may be entered by the King County Superior Court. The parties shall share equally the costs of the arbitration, but each party shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.

13.5 Other Disputes. If a dispute arises between the parties that is not subject to these Dispute Resolution procedures, then either party may enforce this Agreement by legal action filed before an appropriate legal tribunal. 14. General Provisions. 14.1 Binding Agreement; Authority. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are binding on both parties. Each party represents and warrants it has the authority and has undertaken all actions necessary to authorize this as a binding agreement. 14.2 Amendment. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing signed by both parties. 14.3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 14.4 Interpretation; Severability; Changes in Law. This Agreement is intended to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of each party's authority to enter into agreements. If any provisions of this Agreement are declared unenforceable or invalid by a court of law, then the parties shall diligently seek to modify this Agreement (or seek the court's determination of whether and how the Agreement is to be modified if the parties cannot reach agreement) consistent with the parties' intent to the maximum extent allowable under law and consistent with the court decision. If there are changes in applicable law, court decisions, or federal regulations or interpretations that make either party's performance of this Agreement impossible or infeasible, then the parties shall diligently seek to modify this Agreement consistent with the parties' intent and consistent with the good faith obligations set forth in Section 16. 14.5 Coordination; Notice. Each party shall designate in writing a contact person for implementation of this Agreement. Any notice or demand under this Agreement shall be in writing and either (a) delivered personally, (b) sent by facsimile transmission with confirmation and an additional copy mailed first class, or (c) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified

9 02/07/06

mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the designated contact person. 14.6 Cooperation. The parties shall seek in good faith and reasonably to reach agreements and otherwise implement this Agreement. 14.7 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement in every provision hereof. Unless otherwise stated, "days" shall mean calendar days. If any time for action occurs on a weekend or legal holiday, then the time period shall be extended automatically to the next business day. 14.8 Headings. The headings are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 14.9 Exhibits. Exhibits A through D attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference. 15. Relationship of City Code to this Agreement. The parties acknowledge this Agreement is generally intended to govern land use, surface water management, transportation, and material haul, and that the city codes and ordinances do not govern these matters during the term of this Agreement, unless the Agreement otherwise provides for the application of specific City or Port standards.

16. Good Faith. Each party will use good faith in implementing and maintaining the other party's interests as reflected in this Agreement. If, notwithstanding such good faith, there is a change in law, then the provisions of Section 14.4 shall apply. 17. Shared Legislative Strategies. Each party will share proposed legislative strategies in advance of state and federal legislative sessions in order to consider opportunities for mutual support.

10 02/07/06

DATED effective on the last signature below. Dated:__________________ PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal

corporation By:_______________________________________ Its: Approved as to Form: Port of Seattle Counsel Dated:___________________ CITY OF SEATAC, a Washington municipal

corporation By:_______________________________________ Its: Approved as to Form: SeaTac City Attorney

Exhibit A Page 1

02/07/06

EXHIBIT A

LAND USE AGREEMENT The City and Port desire to coordinate their land use planning, project development and permitting by implementing this Land Use Agreement. 1. Cooperative Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development. 1.1 General. The Port and City shall engage in cooperative comprehensive planning to jointly address issues related to the Port's Airport properties and activities and the City's economic development, land use and related goals. The cooperative planning shall strive for consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Port's 1997 Master Plan and the 2005 Airport Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) (and related portions of the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional planning decisions). The coordinated comprehensive planning activities shall include:

1.1.1 Land Uses. The City and Port shall adopt one comprehensive plan designation (“Airport Use”) and two zoning designations for Port owned property, (“Aviation Operations” and “Aviation Commercial”). This comprehensive plan designation is identified on the City Comprehensive Plan, the two zones are identified on the City Zoning Map and the list of allowed uses within each zoning designation is identified in Attachment A-2. All property acquired by the Port in the future may be designated “Airport Use” in the City Comprehensive Plan and zoned either “Aviation Operations” or “ Aviation Commercial” pursuant to the amendment processes contained in this Exhibit . The City and the Port may enter into site specific development agreements, which may reduce or expand allowable land uses within the applicable zone (such as the 55 acre Agreement and the Borrow 3 Agreement). A noise contour overlay map will be included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to foster Airport compatible land use planning and shall be used to guide land use decisions within the City. Existing Part 150 noise guidelines shall be incorporated into the policies.

1.1.2 Advance Notification of Land Use Actions. In keeping with the “no

surprises” policy between the Port and the City, the Port shall notify the City of planned property acquisitions and land use plans on a regular basis and as needed. The Port shall provide project notice of Port actions consistent with Section 2.2.1.3 of this Exhibit and shall review each proposal with the City at a Port Design Review Committee (PDRC) meeting. The City shall notify the Port of any proposal to use Port property in North SeaTac Park, well in advance of taking any action on the proposal. The City shall receive Port approval for proposed land uses or construction prior to granting a permit to all North SeaTac Park users.

Exhibit A Page 2

02/07/06

1.1.3 Noise Planning. The Port and City will utilize the Part 150 Planning

Process for evaluating and incorporating noise compatibility measures, upon FAA approval, into appropriate Port and City plans, policies, and related land use maps and regulations.

1.1.4 Aviation Hazards. To promote safety for City residents, employees,

and visitors, and for air passengers, the City and Port will cooperate on land use planning to enhance the safe landing, take-off, and maneuvering of aircraft. The City will consider adopting development regulations that restrict, or mitigate the impacts of, uses that create the following aviation hazards, with a focus on such uses in runway approach areas:

• high intensity lighting that makes it difficult for pilots to

distinguish between airport lights and other lights; • electrical interference with navigational signals or radio

communication between the Airport and aircraft; • glare in the eyes of pilots using the Airport; • smoke, dust or other particulates that would impair visibility for

aircraft; • storage of highly flammable or explosive materials in the runway

approaches, • bird-strike hazards; or other hazards which may endanger the

landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft.

The City shall notify developers of the need to obtain a written certification of compliance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for proposed structures that penetrate FAA’s notification criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 using FAA form 7460, “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.”

The City shall also coordinate with the Port on considering potential ways to

modify proposed project plans to eliminate or reduce hazardous wildlife attractants for the following types of uses:

• environmental/fisheries/wildlife habitat restoration • waste disposal handling facilities • stormwater management facilities • wetland mitigation/enhancement projects • golf courses

1.2 Economic Development Opportunities. Some properties owned by the Port within the City are away from the airfield and present opportunities for aviation related commercial development. The Port and City worked together through the New Economic

Exhibit A Page 3

02/07/06

Strategy Triangle Study (NEST) to identify economically feasible land uses for these properties. The parties shall continue to work together through the SeaTac Economic Partnership (STEP), the Southwest King County Economic Development Initiative, and other joint planning efforts to advance future development of these properties. 1.3 Adoption and Reservation of Rights. 1.3.1 Adoption.

1.3.1.1 General. The Port adopted its Master Plan update on August 1, 1996, by Resolution 3212 (as amended). The Port updated and refined the Master Plan in its Draft Comprehensive Development Plan dated September 30, 2005. The City adopted its Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan in December 1994, with amendments in each subsequent year.

1.3.1.2 Reservation of Rights. The parties are voluntarily undertaking

cooperative planning in order to resolve their land use jurisdictional disputes. In order to implement terms of this agreement, the parties delegate to each other the discretionary legal authority that each enjoys to undertake comprehensive planning, create zones for particular land uses, determine which land uses are appropriate within those zones, and administer the International Building Codes. Both parties shall cooperate in good faith to avoid appeals or litigation, but neither party waives or concedes any legal rights with respect to its independent legal authority or the application of the Growth Management Act, Chap. 36.70A RCW, Revised Airports Act, Chap. 14.08 RCW, Airport Zoning Act, Chap. 14.12 RCW, Port District enabling statutes such as Chap. 53.04 and .08 RCW or City of SeaTac Municipal Code.

2. Zoning/Land Use/Development Regulations.

2.1 The Comprehensive Plan designation of “Airport Use” and the zoning designations of “Aviation Operations” and “Aviation Commercial” shall be depicted in the City of SeaTac Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. The parties recognize that the Growth Management Act, Chap. 36.70A RCW and the City of SeaTac Municipal Code require the City to adhere to certain legal procedures when amending its comprehensive plan, zoning code and regulatory controls to change the designations for Port-owned property. In order to allow the City to comply with these legal requirements and satisfy the terms of this Interlocal Agreement, the City shall conduct these processes for newly-acquired Port properties or for those Port properties where these zoning designations may be changed.

The parties recognize that adoption of comprehensive plan and zoning

designations by the City are discretionary actions under the Growth Management Act for which

Exhibit A Page 4

02/07/06

the City is responsible. However, by agreeing that the City shall follow these processes with respect to Port property, the Port does not waive or concede any of its legal remedies to enforce the terms of this agreement, except as otherwise noted in this Exhibit. 2.2 Project Implementation and Development Regulations. 2.2.1 Allowed Land Uses on Existing Port Property. The Port and City hereby

establish a system for construction and development of the allowed land uses in the AVO and AVC zones as defined in Attachment A-2:

2.2.1.1 Port Initiation and Permitting. The Port shall control the

development of airport and non-airport uses listed in Attachment A-2 on its property. The Port shall administer the permitting for development on Port property pursuant to the terms of the 2001 Interlocal Agreement between the Port and the City. The Port will confer with the City about project development as described below (Sections 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.5). The Port shall also administer the permitting for demolition and grading on its property related to development of airport uses.

2.2.1.2 Code Enforcement. The Port Aviation Building Official will

enforce the current building codes and development standards throughout the Airport, except for items listed Attachment A-2 under Non-Airport Use/City Permits. Building Department staff will identify and ensure correction of code deficiencies on routine facility walk-throughs, assisted by Facilities and Infrastructure, Maintenance, Project Management, and Tenant Management staff and various consultants that are routinely hired for specific projects. The City of SeaTac may notify the Aviation Building Official regarding code enforcement issues and may notify the Aviation Maintenance Department regarding any maintenance concerns that may arise.

The City of SeaTac Building Division shall enforce its current building

codes and development standards for non-Airport uses on Port property, as identified by Attachment A-2. The City Building Division staff, assisted by appropriate City staff, will identify code deficiencies on routine facility walk-throughs. All Building Code and development standard deficiencies shall be forwarded to the Port for their comment. The Port’s comments shall be incorporated into any correction notices by the City if the Port’s comments are consistent with the City’s correction notices.

2.2.1.3 Project Notice. The Port shall provide a "Project Notice" to the

City for each proposed action by the Port using the format set forth in Attachment A-3 (including a full description of compliance with pre-approved development

Exhibit A Page 5

02/07/06

standards). Project Notice shall be sent as early as possible (e.g. initial listing on Port's spread sheet tracking if sufficient detail exists), but in any event no later than the Port's preparation of a SEPA checklist for the project or the Port's determination the action is not covered by SEPA (e.g. categorical exemption).

2.2.1.4 Development Review. The Port will schedule a Port

Development Review Committee (PDRC) meeting to discuss the project with representatives of several City departments, prior to permitting to assure that the Port and City agree that applicable standards have been applied to the proposed project. Attachment A-3 sets forth the process that the parties shall follow for review of Port permitted projects.

2.2.1.5 Development Standards. All Port projects within the City shall

comply with the development standards set forth in Attachment A-4. If either of the parties believe that the standards in Attachment A-4 are not satisfied, then "Joint Consultation" shall take place under Section 2.2.2, subject to more specific requirements for the Port Master Plan and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) Projects on Port property in Section 2.2.1.6.

Regardless of any other language contained in this ILA, no development

or construction activity (including clearing or grading) shall occur on any of the “L-shaped Property” area until a Letter of Agreement concerning a residential buffering plan and street vacations has been formally agreed to by both the City and the Port, as noted in Exhibit C, Section 1.5.

Any proposed amendments to, or variances/departures from, the

development standards in Attachment A-4 shall be jointly reviewed and approved by the Port and the City. The Port shall provide the City a copy of the proposed amendments at least 60 days before the adoption of these amendments. The City shall provide their written response to the proposed amendment (either approval, approval with modifications, or denial) within 30 days of receipt of the proposed amendments. If the parties cannot agree to the text of the proposed amendments, then “Joint Consultation” shall take place under Section 2.2.2.

2.2.1.6 Airport Master Plan and Comprehensive Development Plan

(CDP) Projects. The interagency cooperation and development commitments measures set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement provide complete community relief and mitigation measures for the Airport Master Plan Projects (as listed in Attachment A-1), subject to the following:

a. For those Master Plan and CDP Projects identified as

eligible for joint consultation on Attachment A-1, Joint

Exhibit A Page 6

02/07/06

Consultation may take place if the prerequisites under Section 2.2.2.1 otherwise apply; and

b. For those Master Plan and CDP Projects on Attachment A-1

that are identified as not eligible for joint consultation, no Joint Consultation shall take place and no additional community relief or mitigation shall be required, but the Port shall implement, after notice and consultation with the City, construction measures such as traffic control and protection of City rights-of-way or facilities. If the Port and City do not agree on these construction measures, then the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section 13 of the ILA shall apply.

2.2.1.7 City Business License. The Port acknowledges that the City has

imposed a business licensing requirement on all persons conducting business within city limits, which limits specifically include the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Although the City will be responsible for enforcing all business license requirements, the Port agrees to notify its tenants and contractors of this requirement and that they may apply for such license at the City’s Finance Department.

2.2.2 "Joint Consultation." Joint Consultation shall be conducted as follows:

2.2.2.1 Prerequisite. Joint Consultation shall be required in the following two circumstances: (i) if the Port proposes to change the zoning designation of a property from "Aviation Commercial" to "Aviation Operations" or (ii) where the impacts of a development or other Port activity meet the prerequisites set forth in the remainder of this paragraph. Projects identified in the Port’s 1997 Airport Master Plan Update and CDP may or may not be eligible for joint consultation – see Attachment A-1). Joint Consultation may be used in other circumstances, as referenced in this Exhibit.

2.2.2.2 Procedure. Either the Port or City may convene a Joint

Consultation by delivering written notice to the other setting forth the party's good faith determination of all of the following prerequisites:

a. The Port's proposed project will have a probable, direct

significant adverse impact on non-Port property; and b. The impacts will not be adequately mitigated by the pre-

approved development standards (Attachment A-4), the

Exhibit A Page 7

02/07/06

interagency agency cooperation provisions of Exhibit C or mitigation incorporated into the proposed project.

c. The impacts are related to elements of the environmental

specified under SEPA.

Within seven (7) days after such notice, the City Manager (or his/her designee) and the Aviation Division Director (or his/her designee), along with any staff or technical persons either party desires, shall meet, consult and seek resolution of any disputes by application of the criteria set forth in Section 2.2.2.3 below.

2.2.2.3 Consultation Criteria. The Port shall incorporate City-requested

mitigation if the mitigation: (a) is attributable to the impact of the proposed action as identified in Section 2.2.2.2; (b) will have a demonstrable benefit; (c) will not result in unreasonable costs to implement; (d) does not materially impair the functioning of the Airport or the integration of the proposed use into existing Airport facilities; and (e) is not a federal conflict (“federal conflict” means the mitigation requested is expressly precluded or preempted by federal or state regulation, or places the Port in noncompliance with federal directives for Airport operation). The City has the burden of showing the existence of the prerequisites in Section 2.2.2.2 (a), (b), and (c) and consultation criteria in Section 2.2.2.3 (a) and (b). The Port has the burden of showing consultation criteria in Section 2.2.2.3 (c), (d), and (e).

2.2.2.4 Dispute Resolution. If a dispute is not resolved at the Joint

Consultation meeting, or within such additional time as the parties may approve, then the dispute shall be resolved through the Dispute Resolution procedures as set forth in Section 13 of the ILA.

2.3 Expansion of Port Uses and Property.

2.3.1 New Use on Existing Port-owned Property. The parties recognize that the Growth Management Act, Chap. 36.70A RCW and the City of SeaTac Municipal Code require the City to adhere to certain legal procedures when amending its zoning map and regulatory controls to change the designations for Port-owned property. In order to allow the City to comply with these legal requirements and satisfy the terms of this ILA, the Port agrees that the City shall conduct these processes for Port properties where the zoning designations will be changed.

The parties recognize that adoption of zoning designations and regulatory controls by the City are discretionary actions under the Growth Management Act for which the

Exhibit A Page 8

02/07/06

City is responsible. However, by agreeing that the City shall follow these processes with respect to Port property, the Port does not waive or concede any of its legal remedies to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

2.3.1.1 Shift Aviation Commercial to Aviation Operation. For a

proposed change in the use of Port property from "Aviation Commercial" to "Aviation Operation," then (a) Joint Consultation shall apply under Section 2.2.2, (b) the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map and agreed uses on Attachment A-2 may be amended for that property pursuant to Section 1.1.1, and (c) the property may be developed pursuant to Section 2.2. The parties acknowledge certain changes from "Aviation Commercial" to "Aviation Operation" could be major improvements or capacity changes at the Airport. Consequently, the scope and extent of mitigation shall correspondingly reflect the scope and magnitude of the change in use. For example, if the change in use involves expansion of a runway, major addition of cargo facilities, a new terminal, or other major changes, then the mitigation package done through Joint Consultation shall reflect the significance of the change in use. [Note: The interagency cooperation and development commitments package in Exhibit C reflects the scope and magnitude of the third runway and related 1997 Master Plan Projects.] Further, the parties acknowledge major improvements or capacity changes at the Airport may trigger review by the Puget Sound Regional Council, amendment of the regional transportation plan or other legal requirements, including Chap. 47.80 RCW. Both parties shall have full ability to participate in any such process involving Airport expansion or facilities. The Joint Consultation under Section 2.2.2 is in addition to such other participation, and this Agreement does not limit a party's rights in other processes.

2.3.1.2 Port proposed Non-Airport Use. If the Port proposes to develop

or use its existing property for a non-Airport use not listed in Attachment A-2, then the Port shall submit applications to the City and the City will administer the permit process.

2.3.1.3 Other Non-Airport Use on Port-owned Property. For Non-

Airport use projects proposed by any applicant other than the Port, the City shall not issue a permit unless it has received written approval for that project from the Port. All Port tenants, including subleases and government agencies, must acquire written approval from the Port for any project to be located on Port property. All development on Port property shall comply with federal and state laws, including federal directives for Airport operation.

The City shall administer and implement the International Codes (building, mechanical and plumbing), the electrical code, and the SeaTac

Exhibit A Page 9

02/07/06

Municipal Code on all Non-Airport Use projects on Port owned property for which the City has not delegated its permitting authority to the Port (as listed in Attachment A-2). All applicants shall submit an application and plans to the City and follow the plan review process outlined in Attachment A-3. Under the terms of the 2004 ILA, the Port and the City shall cooperatively review the building plans, conduct inspections and issue permits. The Port shall be responsible for fire code review for both projects and annual inspections, but shall coordinate its fire code project review with the City’s project review.

The City shall provide six copies of each application and conceptual plan

to the Airport Building Department (ABD) for review by appropriate airport departments and the Port will provide its comments within 10 business days of receipt. The City shall meet with the Port to discuss its comments on the application. The City shall also provide at least six copies of construction plans to the ABD. Within 10 business days of its receipt of these construction plans, the Port shall provide its written comments to the City. The City shall incorporate the Port comments on the construction plans as requirements of the building permit.

The parties anticipate that the Port’s comments on projects will focus

upon areas such as: 1. Aviation hazards such as wildlife attraction from landscaping and

standing water, height, glare, smoke or radio interference; 2. Stormwater management; 3. Impact, damage, or cost to adjacent Port property, airport

operations, or ongoing airport projects; and/or 4. Consistency with Port fire and safety standards.

If the parties disagree about Port comments concerning a building permit application, conceptual plan or construction plan, the City shall not approve the building permit for the project until the parties resolve their differences, provided that such differences are resolved within the State-mandated timeframes of Chap. 36.70.B RCW. If either of the parties disagrees about the interpretation of the building or fire code provided by a building or fire code official, they shall resolve their differences in the manner provided for in the latest version of the state building or fire code. However, if the building code or fire code officials are unable to resolve their differences, then the parties shall go through the Dispute Resolution process as set forth in Section 13 of the ILA.

Exhibit A Page 10

02/07/06

2.3.1.4 Statutory Interpretation if ILA Terminates. The land uses specified in Attachment A-2 shall not bind or waive either party's right to interpret "airport" uses under state law in the event this ILA terminates. 2.3.2 New Port Property. The following procedures shall apply if the Port

desires to acquire property, except for the residential properties located east of Des Moines Memorial Drive adjacent to S. 196th St. and S. 196th Place. These properties are land acquisition for mitigation of the new parallel runway. For purposes of this Agreement, once the property is acquired, these properties shall be rezoned to Aviation Commercial and subject to the procedures of Section 2.2.

2.3.2(a) Allowed Land Uses. The parties agree that the land uses identified in

Attachment A-2 are appropriate in the “Airport Use” comprehensive plan designation and in either the “Aviation Operations” or “Aviation Commercial” zones, as allocated in Attachment A-2. When the Port acquires property for a use identified in Attachment A-2, the parties will follow the process described below under “Consistent Zoning” and “Inconsistent Zoning.” The Port shall reserve the right to apply the EPF process only to uses not listed in Attachment A-2. In the rare circumstance where the proposed use is not listed in Attachment A-2, the parties shall work cooperatively to determine whether the proposed use is an Airport Use. If the parties agree that the proposed use is an Airport Use, then the procedures in Section 2.3.2 shall apply. If the parties cannot agree that the proposed use is an Airport Use, then the parties shall go through Dispute Resolution as set forth in Section 13 of the ILA.

2.3.2.1 Consistent Zoning. When the Port acquires property and plans to use it for any of the uses identified in Attachment A-2, that is consistent with the underlying City zone, the Port shall make an application and the City shall undertake the Growth Management Act processes to change the comprehensive plan designation to “Airport Use” and to change the zoning designation to either “Aviation Operations” or “Aviation Commercial”. Once this process is complete, the City shall amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. 2.3.2.2 Inconsistent Zoning. When the Port acquires property and plans to use it for a use that is inconsistent with the underlying City zone, then the parties shall undertake the amendment processes set forth in this Exhibit, to change the comprehensive plan designation to “Airport Use” and to change the zoning designation to either “Aviation Operations” or “Aviation Commercial”. If the City adopts the proposed amendments, then the City may amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map accordingly and the development of the property shall be governed by Section 2.2, Section 2.3.1 and Attachment A-2 as applicable. As a condition of rezone approval, the City has the discretion to impose additional mitigation pursuant to Section 2.3.3.

Exhibit A Page 11

02/07/06

2.3.3 Additional Procedures. The following additional procedures shall apply if

an amendment is required to change the zoning from Aviation Commercial to Aviation Operations (Section 2.3.1.1) or if the Port acquires property with City zoning that is inconsistent with the Port’s proposed use. (Section 2.3.2.2). The City Manager and the Aviation Division Director, or their staff representatives, shall meet to discuss appropriate mitigation and other matters. If the issues cannot be fully resolved by these Port and City staff members, a Mitigation Committee shall be convened by the parties consisting of two City Council members and two Port commissioners, and appropriate staff. The Mitigation Committee shall develop recommendations for the expanded uses and mitigation, which may include consideration of the Joint Consultation criteria in Section 2.2.2.3.

The parties acknowledge expansion of the Airport may involve major

improvements or capacity changes at the Airport. Consequently, the scope and extent of mitigation shall correspondingly reflect the scope and magnitude of probable significant adverse environmental impacts. For example, if the change in use involves expansion of a runway, major addition of cargo facilities, a new terminal (other than the north terminal as provided in the Port's Master Plan), or other major changes, then the mitigation package done through either the Mitigation Committee or Joint Consultation shall reflect the significance of the change in use. [Note: Refer to Attachment A-1 to determine if a project included in the 1997 Airport Master Plan Update or Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) is eligible for joint consultation or not.] Further, the parties acknowledge major improvements or capacity changes at the Airport may trigger review by the Puget Sound Regional Council, amendment of or consistency with the regional transportation plan or other legal requirements, including Chap. 47.80 RCW. Both parties shall have full ability to participate in any such processes involving Airport expansion or facilities.

If the City Manager and Aviation Director reach consensus, or the Mitigation

Committee reaches a consensus, a report and recommendation(s) shall be issued within sixty (60) days of the first meeting between the City Manager and Aviation Division Director or of the Mitigation Committee being convened (which time will be extended if additional information is reasonably required or if agreed to by both parties). The City Council and the Port Commission shall make a decision thereon within the following thirty (30) days (unless this time period is extended by mutual agreement) and formalize an agreement regarding the agreed upon mitigations. In any event, if a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) or environmental impact statement (EIS) is to be issued, the mitigations recommended by the City Manager and Aviation Division Director or Mitigation Committee, and agreed to by the City Council and Port Commission, shall be incorporated by the Port into the draft MDNS or EIS prior to their issuance. If the Mitigation Committee does not reach consensus, then a report shall be prepared and delivered to the City Council and Port Commission within sixty (60) days

Exhibit A Page 12

02/07/06

of the Mitigation Committee being convened (which time will be extended if mutually agreed to by both parties). This report shall indicate the areas of agreement and the outstanding issues. If the Port issues a SEPA decision for a Port project subject to review by the Mitigation Committee, the Port will not formally adopt this decision until the Mitigation Committee report has been delivered to the City Council and the Port Commission.

2.3.4 Dispute Over “Essential Public Facility.” This section only applies to

land uses not listed in Attachment A-2. If the parties disagree about whether some or all of new proposed development can be defined as an “essential public facility” as defined by the GMA, then the City or Port may file a petition with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. If the GMHB does not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, then either party may pursue other appropriate legal remedies and are not required to follow the Dispute Resolution under Section 13 of the ILA. If the Port’s proposed use is determined not to be part of an essential public facility, then the Port shall submit permit applications to the City and the City shall administer the Uniform Codes utilizing the development standards in Attachment A-4. The City may impose mitigation conditions if the standards do not provide direct and reasonable mitigation for the new use. If the Port’s proposed use is determined to part of an essential public facility, then Section 2.3.3 shall apply.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A-1 - List of Airport Master Plan (Updated from 1997 ILA) and Comprehensive

Development Plan (CDP) Projects Attachment A-2 - Allowed Land Uses and Permit Administration in the "Aviation Operations"

and "Aviation Commercial" Zones Attachment A-3 - Port and City Development Review Process and Standard Format for Project

Notice Attachment A-4 - Development Standards for Port Projects Attachment A-5 - Critical Area Mitigation Approved as Part of Port Master Plan Projects that are

not eligible for Joint Consultation Attachment A-6 - Map of City Business Park Zones (Existing as of August 1997) Attachment A-7 - Map of City of SeaTac’s City Center and Urban Center boundaries

Exhibit A Page 13

02/07/06

Attachment A-1 to Exhibit A

Page 1

ATTACHMENT A-1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTS

The 1997 City of SeaTac and Port of Seattle Interlocal Agreement (ILA) identified a package of community relief and mitigation measures for projects in the Port’s 1997 Airport Master Plan Update and in the Port’s Draft Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) dated on or about September 30, 2005. The table below lists the current status of the Master Plan and CDP projects and whether they are eligible for joint consultation under the 2005 ILA. Any projects not listed in the table shall be eligible for joint consultation.

Master Plan Projects (from 1997 ILA) Eligible for Joint

Consultation 1 Acquisition of land for the new parallel (third) runway No 2 Relocation of Airport Surface Radar (ASR) and Airport Surface

Detection Equipment (ASDE) No

3 Relocation of S. 154/156th St. around new runway end No 4 Construction of new parallel runway and associated taxiways No 5 Extension of Runway 34R by 600 feet No 6 Development of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) embankments No 7 Relocation of S. 154/156th St. around 16L and 16R RSAs No 8 Improvements to the Main Terminal roadway and recirculation

roads, including a partial connection to the South Access Roadway and a ramp roadway from the upper level roadway to the Airport exit.

No

9 Expansion of the main parking garage to the South, North and East

No

10 Construction of the overnight aircraft parking apron (midfield location)

No

11 Expansion or redevelopment of the cargo facilities in the north cargo complex (on airfield, south of SR 518)

No

12 Site preparation at South Aviation Support Area (SASA) site for displaced facilities

No

13 Development of a ground support equipment location at SASA No 14 Development of general aviation/corporate aviation facilities in

SASA or north airfield location No

15 Development of a new airport maintenance building and Yes (1)


Page 2

demolition of existing facility 16 Development of on airport hotel, convention and/or conference

facility immediately adjacent and providing direct physical access to passenger terminal facilities

No

17 Development of the Des Moines Creek Development Area (Borrow site 1 – portion of site within the City of SeaTac)

Yes

18 Dual Taxiway 34R No 19 Construction of the South Link roadway and closure of the S.

182nd Street access Yes

20 Additional expansion of the main parking garage (to the north) No 21 Expansion of the north employee parking lot (North of SR 518)

to 6,000 stalls including improvements to the intersection of S. 154th /24th Ave. S.

No

22 Construction of second phase of overnight apron (midfield location)

No

23 Development of the first phase of the North Terminal (south pier), development of the ramps off SR 518 near 20th Ave. S. and intersection improvements to S. 160th St. to address surface transportation issues associated with the closure of S. 170th St. to through traffic

Yes (2)

24 Construct first phase of the North Unit Terminal parking structure for public and rental cars

No

25 Development of the North Unit Terminal Roadways Yes 26 Interchange near 20th Ave. S / SR 518 for access to cargo

complex No

27 Relocate Airport Rescue & Firefighting Facility (ARFF) to north No 28 Additional improvements to the South Access Roadway

connector Yes

29 Relocation of the United Maintenance complex to SASA Yes 30 Continued expansion of north cargo facilities (on airfield south

of SR 518 & north of SR 518 on the “L-shaped” parcel and potential expanded “L-shaped” parcel)

Yes (3)

31 Expansion of North Unit Terminal (North Pier) No 32 Complete connectors to South Access Roadway (to eventual SR

509 Extension and South Access) Yes

33 Additional Expansion of north employee lot to 6,700 stalls No 34 55 Acre Development (development agreement to be

renegotiated) No

35 Expand North Unit Terminal parking structure for public No


Page 3

parking


Page 4

CDP Projects

1 160th Loop No 2 Radisson Demolition No 3 North Airport Expressway Relocation – Phase I No 4 Sound Transit Light Rail No 5 Des Moines Creek 1 Dev. No 6 55 acre Development – O3 Yes 7 Borrow 3 development or sale Yes 8 POS Consolidated Maintenance Facility – A22 Yes 9 USPS relocation Yes (1) 10 Upper Terminal Drive Widening & Exit Ramp – L5 No 11 South Employee Parking Lot – Phase I – L1 Yes 12 South Employee Parking Lot – Phase II – L6 Yes 13 Aircraft RON Parking USPS Airmail Center Site – A2 No 14 Aircraft RON Parking – Air Cargo IV Site (Incl. Demo.) – A6 No 15 Aircraft RON Parking – Existing ARFF Site (Incl. Demo.) – A7 No 16 Aircraft RON Parking – Delta Cargo Site (Incl. Demo.) – A16 No 17 Aircraft RON Parking – Existing Alaska Airlines Maintenance

Site (Incl. Demo.) – A17 No

18 North Freight Cargo Bridge – C1 Yes 19 North Freight Cargo Complex (L-Shaped Parcel) – C2 No 20 North Airport Expressway Relocation – Phase II – L7 Yes (2) 21 Gate Gourmet Demolition – A23 No 22 NESPA 1 – O1 Yes (2) 23 South Link to S. 188th St. (includes potential closure of S. 182nd

St. entrance to pedestrian access to and from Main Terminal) – L10

Yes (2)

24 North Belly Cargo (Incl. Demo.) – C4 Yes 25 United Cargo Demolition No 26 Commercial Development along 28th Ave. Yes 27 North Freight Cargo Complex Hardstand (Incl. Demo.) – C3 No 28 Alaska Airlines North Maintenance (Incl. Demo.) – A8 No 29 FedEx Expansion (Incl. Demo.) – C7 No 30 Lower Drive Exit Ramp – L9 No


Page 5

31 South Belly Cargo – C6 Yes 32 South Belly Cargo Airfield Access – C5 Yes 33 New Main ARFF Station – United Cargo Site (Incl. Demo.) –

A5 Yes (1)

34 North Satellite Expansion – T3 No 35 South Satellite Expansion – T1 No 36 Main Terminal Expansion – Phase I – T2 No 37 Main Terminal Expansion – Phase II – T5 No 38 Concourse D Extension – T4 No 39 Taxiway PP & QQ Improvements – A3 No 40 Taxiways J& H Improvements – A4 No 41 Taxiway A Improvements – A11 No 42 North Departures Hold-pad – A9 No 43 Dual Taxilanes South of South Satellite – A10 No 44 Dual Taxilanes North of North Satellite – A14 No 45 South Departures Hold-pad – A18 No 46 GSE Storage – A26 No 47 Dual Taxilanes North of South Satellite – A27 No 48 Dual Taxilanes South of North Satellite – A28 No 49 South Access – L13 Yes 50 Parking Garage Expansion – L11 No 51 APM between Main Terminal and RCF – L16 No 52 Convert Curbs to Alternative II – L15 No 53 Secondary ARFF Station – A19 No 54 160th Ground Transportation Taxi Holding Lot – L4 No 55 Fire Department Training Area – A1 No

Footnotes 1. Potential joint consultation only if the relocated facility is outside the Aviation Operations

zone shown in Attachment A-2 2. Potential joint consultation only for roadways 3. Potential joint consultation only for potential expanded “L-shaped” parcel


Page 1

ATTACHMENT A-2

ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION IN THE “AVIATION OPERATIONS” AND “AVIATION COMMERCIAL” ZONES

Land Use Allowed

in AVO Allowed in AVC

Permit administration

AIRPORT USE/AIRPORT PERMITS Runways, taxiways, & safety areas Yes Port Aircraft ramp & parking areas Yes Port Airfield lighting Yes Port Aviation navigation, communication & landing

Yes Port

Aids for airport and aircraft operations Yes Yes Port Airfield control towers & FAA air traffic control facilities

Yes Port

Passenger terminal facilities, including passenger and baggage handling, ticketing, security checkpoints, waiting areas, restrooms, aircraft loading gates, restaurants, conference facilities, newsstands, gift shops, and other commercial activities providing goods and services for the traveling public

Yes Port

Designated airfield safety areas, clear zones, & runway protection zones

Yes Yes Port

Aircraft run-up areas Yes Port Aircraft fueling systems Yes Port Airfield crash/fire/rescue (ARFF) facilities, including staff quarters & offices

Yes Port

Facilities for the maintenance of aircraft Yes Port Facilities for the maintenance of airline equipment

Yes Port

Facilities for the maintenance of airport & airfield facilities

Yes Port

Airfield security facilities such as fencing, gates, guard stations, etc.

Yes Yes Port

Parking and storage for airfield ground Yes Port


Page 2

Land Use Allowed in AVO

Allowed in AVC


service equipment (GSE) Inter-/intra-terminal transfer facilities for people, baggage, & cargo (P)

Yes Yes Port

Other aviation activities or facilities whose location within the AVO zone is fixed by function by FAA requirements

Yes Port

Other aviation activities or facilities whose location within the AVC zone is fixed by function by FAA requirements related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Port

Facilities for the maintenance of airline & airfield equipment and of airport & airfield facilities, provided that maintenance of heavy equipment (e.g. Fuel trucks, runway snowplows) shall be permitted only in the AVO zone and is directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Port

Parking and storage for airline and airfield ground service equipment (GSE), provided that parking and storage for heavy equipment (e.g. Fuel trucks, runway snowplows) shall be permitted only in the AVO zone and is directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Port

Air cargo aircraft loading and unloading Yes Port Airfield infrastructure Yes Port Airport access roadways Yes Port Airfield service roads and access improvements to those roads

Yes Yes Port

Meteorological equipment Yes Yes Port Communications equipment, if directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Yes Port

Public transportation facilities related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Yes Port

Roadways and public transportation facilities that provide access to the

Yes Port


Page 3


Allowed in AVC


Airport for its customers , commercial vehicles and ground transportation services Utilities serving uses permitted in the zone

Yes Yes Port

Parking facilities immediately adjacent and providing direct physical access to passenger terminal facilities

Yes Yes Port

Air cargo warehousing and customer service facilities with direct airfield access or delivery to secure areas of the Airport

Yes Yes Port

Controlled storage of hazardous wastes generated by permitted uses and temporarily stored prior to disposal in accordance with federal and state regulations )

Yes Port

Wholesale sales and distribution facilities with direct airfield access, or delivery to secure area of the Airport.

Yes Port

Retail sales inside Air Operations Area (AOA)

Yes Port

Warehousing and distribution facilities, excluding truck terminals, with direct airfield access or delivery to secure areas of the Airport.

Yes Port

NON-AIRPORT USE/CITY PERMITS

Public transportation facilities ( to be owned and operated by another agency)

Yes Yes City or by separate interlocal agreement

Infrastructure and utilities serving uses permitted in other zones or areas

Yes Yes City

Other hotels, convention and conference Yes City


Page 4


Allowed in AVC


facilities (permitted use only if approved by the City Council, on a case-by-case basis) Commercial parking not connected to the terminal

Yes City

Air cargo warehousing and customer service facilities.

Yes Yes City

Reasonable accessory office and staff facilities independent of uses permitted in the zone, if such uses are not directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes City

Retail sales outside AOA, airport controlled safety areas and airport-operated facilities

Yes City

Wholesale sales and distribution facilities.

Yes City

Warehousing and distribution facilities, excluding truck terminals

Yes City

Other uses not directly related to the operation of the Airport

Case-by-case

determination by the Port

and City, per ILA

City/Port

LAND USES THE CITY AND THE PORT HAVE NOT COME TO AGREEMENT ON WHETHER THE LAND USES ARE AN AIRPORT USE OR A NON-AIRPORT USE

Hotel, convention and conference facilities immediately adjacent and providing direct physical access to passenger terminal facilities

Yes Port

Parking for employees directly related to the operation and construction of the

Yes Yes Port


Page 5


Allowed in AVC


Airport Passenger vehicle rental, including parking, service and preparation, and customer facilities to be owned and operated by airport

Yes Yes Port

Flight kitchens directly related to operation of airport

Yes Yes Port

Offices and work and storage areas for airline and aviation support

Yes Yes Port

Reasonable accessory office and staff facilities to serve uses permitted in the zone, if such uses are directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Yes Port

Employee support facilities such as cafeterias, locker rooms, rest areas, restrooms, exercise areas, etc., directly related to the operation of the Airport

Yes Port

Public access parks, trails, or viewpoints but only in accordance with the Public Use Special Conditions listed below: -- Public Use Special Conditions -- The following special conditions shall apply to any areas which are designated for public access parks, trails, or viewpoints: -- Public access or recreational uses shall be limited as necessary to assure compatibility with airport and aviation activities. If use of Port-owned property by the public for access and recreation is permitted, it shall be considered compatible with airport operations, including noise and other impacts, and shall not establish a recreation use or other public activity under the U. S. Department of Transportation 4(f) provisions.

Yes Yes Case-by-case determination

by the Port and City, per ILA process


Page 6


Allowed in AVC


-- Public use and access shall be generally of low intensity. Density guidelines for numbers of people may be established by the Port and FAA, with input from the public and local jurisdiction. (Examples of such guidelines are represented in the North SeaTac Park leases and tri-party agreements.) -- Public use and access shall be subject to the requirements and needs of airport and aviation activities, including security, as determined by the Port and/or the FAA. Those clean light industrial and manufacturing facilities permitted in the City’s BP zone as it existed on the date of the 1997 Interlocal Agreement (See Attachment A-6)

Yes Case-by-case determination

by the Port and City, per ILA process


Page 1

ATTACHMENT A-3

STANDARD FORMAT FOR PROJECT NOTICE AND

PORT AND CITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

STANDARD FORMAT FOR PROJECT NOTICE This Project Notice would be sent to the City's designated contact person as early as possible (e.g. initial listing on the Port's spread sheet tracking if sufficient detail exists), but in any event no later than the Port's preparation of a SEPA checklist for the project or the Port's determination that the action is not covered by SEPA (e.g. categorical exemption). Location (with map) and Size, Function and Scope of Project: Proposed Use and User: Proposed Schedule for Construction: SEPA/Environmental Compliance: Describe environmental analysis including whether covered by prior EIS; if additional detail since EIS analysis, describe significant adverse impacts and any proposed new mitigation to address these impacts. Description of Applicable Development Standards (and any modifications resulting from federal or state requirements): [See list in Attachment A-4] PORT-CITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS This document addresses City review of Port projects. Section I focuses on compliance with the standards in the 2005 Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Port (“ILA”). Section II focuses on procedures for City permits. The Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Port entered into in the year 2005 governs whether City permits are required. Modifications to this Port-City Development Review Process may be made by mutual agreement of staff for the Port and City. Any such modification shall be made in writing, with revised versions of this document distributed to Port and City staff.


Page 2

SECTION I: PROCEDURE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH 2005 ILA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GOALS FOR REVIEW PROCESS: Both agencies agree there needs to be a process for the City to verify compliance with the development standards in Attachment A-4 to Exhibit A. This process: 1) enables the City or the Port to know if and when to trigger Joint Consultation or Dispute Resolution, as provided for in the 2005 ILA; and 2) provides a more predictable and timely project review process for the Port. The general steps in the review process are outlined below. A. INTERNAL PORT PROCEDURE: 1. In order to determine whether a project requires submission to the City, Port staff will fill out the Preliminary Design Review Conference Checklist, Category 1 in Attachment A-3. This checklist must be reviewed internally by the Port’s Airport Building Department (ABD). 2. For those Port and tenant projects that require submittal to the City, the Preliminary Design Review Conference Checklist for each project will be reviewed by the Port’s Preliminary Design Review Committee (“PDRC”) prior to submittal to the City. The review is for “quality control” purposes and compliance with applicable ILA/Port standards. Issues of interpretation are identified and discussed internally in order to enhance later discussions with the City. City attendance at the PDRC meetings shall be as described in Section C-2. 3. Port environmental staff is responsible for maintaining an up-to-date Project Notice tracking sheet of Port projects, with copies provided quarterly to the City. Emphasis is on early listing of projects, even if information is preliminary or incomplete at time of initial listing. 4 Port staff is responsible for informing consultants/staff of applicable development standards from the ILA, and other project requirements that shall be used for design. Plans submitted for ILA standards verification will show how the standards from the ILA are addressed. (Note: The more complete the plans can be, the more likely the City will verify compliance with ILA standards in a timely manner.) This information can be included on a single plan sheet or on the relevant individual sheets, as appropriate. The plans shall also clearly identify who is the Port Project Manager. The Port Project Manager will be the contact person on the project for the purpose of City communications. B. INFORMAL PRE-SUBMITTAL CONSULTATION: As is the case with any applicant, Port staff may choose to consult informally with City staff to discuss ILA standards for a potential project. The procedure that follows is not intended


Page 3

to eliminate such informal consultation. C. FORMAL SUBMITTALS: 1. For each Port project, consideration shall be given as to whether the development standards from the 2005 ILA apply to the project. According to Section 2.2.1.5 to Exhibit A, all Port projects within the City shall comply with the pre-approved development standards that are set forth in Attachment A-4 to Exhibit A in the 2005 ILA. Therefore, the Port Project Manager shall review the standards in Attachment A-4 to see how they apply to the project. In order to aid in identifying whether ILA standards apply to a project, a checklist has been created, which is attached to the end of this Attachment to this Development Review Process procedure. Category 1 of that checklist addresses the 2005 ILA standards. That checklist shall be filled out in its entirety for each Port project by the Port Project Manager and be submitted to the ABD for review with a copy to be placed in the project file. 2. If any item is checked “yes” in Category 1 on the Attachment A-3 checklist, then it is necessary for that project to be discussed at the Port’s PDRC meeting as scheduled by the ABD. Such meetings shall be held on a regularly scheduled basis. The ABD will prepare an agenda for each PDRC meeting that lists the projects to be discussed at that meeting. The project name shall include an asterisk by it, if any item is checked “yes” in Category I on the Attachment A-3 checklist. At the bottom of the agenda, a note shall be included which states: “projects with an asterisk may involve City review under the 2005 ILA.” The Port shall provide copies of the agenda, and project drawings, for each PDRC meeting to the City Planning Director or designee, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, at the same time as the agenda is distributed to Port staff. The City is invited to attend a PDRC meeting. The purpose of the invitation to the City is to create a forum where the City and Port can discuss and resolve questions regarding application of ILA standards. Also, at the PDRC meeting, the City may determine that a project with an asterisk does not actually require City review for verification of 2005 ILA standards. However, unless the City explicitly determines at a PDRC meeting that City review is unnecessary, any projects with a “yes” from Category 1 on the Attachment A-3 checklist will require City review. To facilitate review at the PDRC meeting, at a minimum, a brief project description and conceptual site plan shall be prepared for each project that has items checked “yes” in Category 1 on the Attachment A-3 checklist (Note: depending on the size, complexity and location of the project additional drawings may be necessary). For each such project, the project description and conceptual site plan (at a minimum) shall be brought to the PDRC meeting, and a copy of both included with the PDRC agenda provided to the City. Providing addition project information, in advance of or at the PDRC meeting, will facilitate more complete review comments.


Page 4

3. If no City permit is required but ILA standards apply, the Port shall provide a “For your information” set of the project plans to the City Planning Director or designee for verification that the project meets ILA development standards. Such plans shall be provided to the City as part of the Port’s 90% review process. For speed and efficiency, more than one set of plans should be submitted if additional City departments must review them (one set for each department). The City Planning Director or designee shall coordinate City review of the plans through the City’s own internal process, providing to the Port Project Manager a written sheet of comments on ILA standards verification. (The City shall prepare its own comment form for this purpose.) If the City believes there is potentially a dispute regarding compliance with ILA standards, then the City shall identify that on its comment sheet. The City shall provide its comment sheet to the Port within 40 days of the City’s receipt of the project plans. The Port shall review the City’s comments, and if an issue cannot be resolved through discussion between the Port and the City staff directly involved, then Joint Consultation shall apply. If Joint Consultation and /or Dispute Resolution is invoked, the Port may not proceed to construct the portion of the project directly implicated by the disputed issue, until the Joint Consultation process (and the Dispute Resolution process, if it is invoked) have come to conclusion. In the normal course of construction, the City may wish to visit the construction site to observe how the ILA standards are being implemented. Such a visit will be arranged in advance through a City telephone call to the Port Project Manager. 4. If a City permit is required pursuant to Section II below, the Port or tenant shall proceed with the standard permit process, as described below. The focus of City review is on both ILA development standards and other applicable City construction codes and ordinances. D. DOCUMENTATION OF INTERPRETATIONS OF ILA STANDARDS: In the course of project review, the City and Port are likely to develop interpretations of the ILA standards, including possible waivers of those standards where appropriate. For consistency and predictability, when such interpretations may have general application, they should be documented in writing and included as a formal part of the Owner’s Manual. The written interpretation must be signed by the Director of the Aviation Division for the Port and by the City Manager for the City, in order for it to be effective.


Page 5

SECTION II: PROCEDURES FOR CITY PERMITS E. WHEN PERMITS ARE REQUIRED: 1. Year 2005 ILA. The 2005 Interlocal Agreement between the Port and the City governs whether City permits are required for projects on Port property. In summary form, that agreement provides for the following: a. For projects on Port property that are uses for which the Port is identified in Exhibit A, Attachment A-2 as responsible for permit administration, the Port will administer the adopted Codes for building, mechanical, plumbing, and fire, and the State Department of Labor and Industries is responsible for administering the electrical code. For all uses subject to Port permit administration, no City-administered permits are required under the building, mechanical, plumbing, fire or electrical codes. However, City public works permits may be required under other City ordinances, such as haul permits or right-of-way permits. (See Category 2 on the Attachment A-3 checklist.) b. For Port projects on Port property for which the City will permit, the City is responsible for administering the adopted Codes for building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. City permits shall be required for those non-airport uses (as defined in Exhibit A, Attachment A-2), according to the provisions in these Codes and other applicable City ordinances. In terms of the International Fire Code, the Port Fire Department is responsible for permit review and issuance. c. For Non-Port projects on Port property, the City is responsible for administering the adopted Codes for building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. City permits shall be required for those non-airport uses according to the provisions in these Codes and other applicable City ordinances. In terms of the International Fire Code, the Port Fire Department is responsible for permit review and issuance. However, the 2004 Letter of Agreement and the 2005 ILA requires that such non-Port projects on Port land require City coordination and joint review with the Port.

2. Grading Permits. By way of background, if a project involves grading only (no building), the City will review the project and plans, and will issue a grading and drainage permit, 500 cubic yards or less shall not require a City grading permit. However, if a project involves building construction as well as grading, then the City will review the grading as part of the building permit. For this latter type of project, the City will issue a building permit that includes grading approval, but no


Page 6

separate grading and drainage permit is issued for the project. To simplify the discussion, this Development Review Process labels both of these types of grading approvals as a “grading permit.” To clarify the City’s permit authority for projects involving grading, the City and Port agree to the following: a. Grading on the Airfield. No grading permit from the City is required for grading on the airfield. The airfield is defined as the Air Operations Area (AOA) as currently delineated, and with any changes approved by the FAA. Any building constructed on the airfield will be an “airport use” by definition, so the City would not have permit authority for the building, and thus would have no permit authority for grading associated with the building. b. Grading off the Airfield: Grading only, No Building.

1. If grading is located in an area that is temporarily off the airfield because the line delineating the airfield has changed during the construction of a particular project to allow freer access for construction workers, that grading would not require a City grading permit (unless the grading is for a building that requires a building permit under the year 2005 ILA).

2. If grading is outside the present airfield, but in areas that are

planned to become part of the airfield, such as the Third Runway, then the project is for an “airport use” and the grading does not require a grading permit. This would include such uses as construction staging areas, laydown areas, stockpiling of dirt, and construction worker parking.

3. If the grading is in an area that is not planned to be included in the

airfield, but is being graded in preparation for a planned airport use as listed in Attachment A-2, the grading will not require a City grading permit.

4. If the grading is in an area not planned to be included in the

airfield and is not associated with a planned airport use, (such as noise buyout areas), the grading will require a City grading permit.

c. Grading off the Airfield Associated with a Building. If no City permits are required for the building pursuant to the year 2005 ILA, then no City grading permit is required. However, if City permits are required for the building pursuant to the year 2005 ILA, then grading for the building will be reviewed by the City as part of its building permit process. Plans submitted for the building permit will show the grading necessary for the building and site improvements.


Page 7

d. Grading in Locations with Known Contaminated Soils. The City normally

requires a site with contaminated soils to be cleaned up or managed in accordance with accepted standards, and documentation of compliance with standards is provided to the City for its files prior to issuance of a building permit. The Port has protocols for addressing contaminated soils that are consistent with established Mode Toxics Control Act (MTCA) regulations (173-340 WAC) which will be followed. The implementation results and conclusions generated therefrom, are routinely reported to the Department of Ecology. MTCA regulations do not require that Ecology provide a timely response to such reports.

Whether or not a City grading permit is required, the 2005 ILA specifies standards for drainage, critical areas, BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, and hauling, and the City may still review a courtesy set of plans for compliance with ILA standards. In addition, with or without a grading permit, review of those items is based on the 2005 ILA standards, rather than City codes. However, with respect to grading-related items not covered by the ILA standards, such as slopes of cut and fill areas, the City’s review is based on City codes.

In those circumstances where no City permits are required for a project, the Port will maintain the site management records rather than transmitting them to the City. However, where a City permit is required for the project, the Port shall provide the City copies of those documents prepared in the normal course of business with Ecology or others. For example, final site investigation reports and remediation reports would be made available to the City in the context of obtaining a necessary building or grading permit, or at other appropriate times as they are published. There will be times when the Port cannot complete the cleanup or site management prior to issuance of a building permit because the work is actually done as part of the building construction process. As long as the Port permit and occupancy permit is in advance of and independent of completion of site management activities and site cleanup, and the Port will provide copies of final cleanup reports to the City. Where a City permit is required for a project, the Port will notify the City of anticipated grading in known contaminated areas via the Building Permit submittal documents. The Port will notify the City of planned haul of contaminated soil from the Airport to appropriate treatment and disposal facilities. Haul notification will include a copy of the treatment/disposal facility acceptance profile or similar description of the subject material. The Port will make every effort to provide advance notice (24 hours) of scheduled haul of known contaminated materials, but the City recognizes that notice of unscheduled haul may not be provided prior to the actual haul.


Page 8

F. PROCESS FOR WHEN CITY PERMITS ARE REQUIRED: The City requires a meeting with its Development Review Committee (“DRC”) for most development projects, prior to submittal of actual permit applications. The purpose of the DRC meeting is to discuss with representatives of several City departments the nature of the proposed development, application and permit requirements, fees, review process and schedule, and applicable plans, policies and regulations. Such meetings are particularly valuable to applicants early in the project design process, so that issues and concerns can be flagged prior to detailed design.

1. DRC Meeting.

The following procedure shall be followed if a DRC meeting is required:

Typically, a conceptual site plan is required in order to

2005 interlocal agreement (ila-2) - port of seattle · 2018. 3. 13. · 4 02/07/06 this interlocal...

Documents